Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in removing unsightly advertising banners in his locale. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to act to ensure the removal of illegally erected advertising banners which are blighting his locale.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. At the end of 2021 Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about an unsightly set of advertising banners illegally erected in the area he lives which he had brought to the Council’s attention earlier in the year. The Council acknowledged that it had taken too long to investigate matters but that moving forward it would contact the relevant landowner and serve the required notice for the removal of the banners.
7. As the banners remained in place, Mr X took his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure in April 2022. In reply the Council apologised for its delay and explained its officer had now contacted the County Council, the owner of the land, about the matter.
8. In response to my request for an update on the situation, the Council advised it eventually received a reply from the County Council which told it that the County Council was not responsible for the land and that Network Rail is the likely landowner. On this basis, the Council has now contacted Network Rail with a request that the banners be removed. It has received an acknowledgement that the matter will be investigated and the Council has told Mr X it will keep him updated.
9. There has been delay by the Council in investigating the case and it did not keep Mr X updated. It has explained why matters have been delayed but has now identified the likely landowner and is pursuing matters with them. As this is the case, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.
10. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he wants an investigation so we can order the Council to remove the banners within a defined time frame. However, even if we investigated, we cannot order the Council to take a particular course of action and the landowner has yet to be determined. The Council is currently pursuing matters with Network Rail which is considered to be the likely landowner. If, subsequently, Mr X considers the Council is delaying unreasonably or failing to take appropriate action then he can make this the subject of a new complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman